That said.. after mucking around in the innards of one of these Minis, it struck me -- does the AC556 use the same connector rod assembly that the M14 does for automatic fire? Or did Ruger come up with an original design that doesn't depend on remilling the receiver for a little jumpy rod to move around in?

Thanks!

-K

Jamie Young

June 8, 2002, 01:53 AM

While based on the Ruger Mini14, many parts from the AC556 are not interchangeable with the Ruger Mini14. For one thing, the receiver of the AC556 is different from that of the Mini14. Besides the obvious cutouts for the selector switch, receiver of the AC556 is slightly longer. There are a few other parts on the AC556 (trigger, secondary sear, trigger housing to name a few) which also won't fit or work with Mini14 parts.

I'm not too familiar with the M14 rifles (I've never taken one apart) but I believe the Mini 14 is closer to the ACC556 than the AC556 is to the M14.

Kaylee

June 8, 2002, 01:21 PM

Well, the M14 has (IMO) a rather clumsy hack-job of an auto system. A transfer bar gets picked up by the oprod, and releases the sear/disconnector bits in the trigger group. Basically, you have a little reciprocating rod connecting the op rod at the front of the receiver to the trigger group at the rear of the receiver.

What I was asking is -- does the AC556 use this arrangement as well, or did Bill figure out a way to do all the "auto stuff" just in the trigger group, doing away with the need for a transfer rod?
From the way you're describing it (secondary sear, 3-shot burst, and all that), it sounds like it.

Seems a better solution.. and I'm curious why, if possible, it wasn't implemented in the M14 to start with.

-K

Badger Arms

June 8, 2002, 03:07 PM

It's Patent 3,847,054. In fact, it's a unique design and a three position selector for Semi, Burst, and Auto. It's an 18 page patent that I didn't download. I'm having enough trouble understanding the ones I've got. Hope this helps.

Kaylee

June 10, 2002, 04:15 PM

Thank you Badger -- neat!

Now another question.. does the AC556 only come in a pistol-gripped configuration, or is there a "sporter" stocked version as well?

How DO traditional stocked weapons handle on FA? Are they harder to control than their pistol-gripped counterparts?
(and if so, is that a reason that the M14 never caught on much on FA, but the FAL seemed to keep it? Or am I misinformed here?)

-K

Badger Arms

June 10, 2002, 09:57 PM

From what I can gather from promotional material, it was available in blued or stainless, fixed or folding stock, 13" barrel, Bayonet lug and Flash Suppressor were all optional. Basically, if a department wanted 20 guns made their way, they'd get them.

Kaylee-The M14 has more recoil due to the design of the rifle compared to the recoil absorbing FAL. The FAL is more controllable in F/A due to the fact the spring in the stock absorbs the recoil. The M14 doesn't have that.